Jump to content
IGNORED

What happened to the obstruction rule


Wrongagain

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

A bit like the incessant grappling that is allowed to go on at set pieces these days, it seems to be completely ignored.

A couple of seasons ago the football referees clamped down on this and at the start of the season we started to see penalties being given for attackers being "manhandled" at corners. Lots of debate on MOTD IIRC about this and managers moaning when it affected their team.

However, as with so many of this type of "initiative" once the dust has settled after the initial fuss, things appear to have gone back to where they were previously, so corners and free kicks are once again the football equivalent of all in wrestling.

On the obstruction issue, the one that makes me mad, is when a defender is "shepherding" the ball out for a goal kick. The ball can be 10 feet away from him, but he appears to be allowed to back in and hand off the attacker to prevent him getting past and anywhere near the ball. In my playing days making no attempt to play the ball and doing this would obstruction  but it now constitutes a legitimate defending tactic.

It seems to me that any physical contact now constitutes , not only a foul, but also a yellow card. I do wonder what type of challenge is a legitimate tackle, as every element of physical contact seems to be penalised.

Perhaps Im just becoming a grumpy old man.

One bit of good news - it was good to see Rooney wearing proper boots yesterday i.e. black ones!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, downendcity said:

A couple of seasons ago the football referees clamped down on this and at the start of the season we started to see penalties being given for attackers being "manhandled" at corners. Lots of debate on MOTD IIRC about this and managers moaning when it affected their team.

However, as with so many of this type of "initiative" once the dust has settled after the initial fuss, things appear to have gone back to where they were previously, so corners and free kicks are once again the football equivalent of all in wrestling.

On the obstruction issue, the one that makes me mad, is when a defender is "shepherding" the ball out for a goal kick. The ball can be 10 feet away from him, but he appears to be allowed to back in and hand off the attacker to prevent him getting past and anywhere near the ball. In my playing days making no attempt to play the ball and doing this would obstruction  but it now constitutes a legitimate defending tactic.

It seems to me that any physical contact now constitutes , not only a foul, but also a yellow card. I do wonder what type of challenge is a legitimate tackle, as every element of physical contact seems to be penalised.

Perhaps Im just becoming a grumpy old man.

One bit of good news - it was good to see Rooney wearing proper boots yesterday i.e. black ones!

Drives me mad too, even when our players do it. 

Lots of recurring talk of implementing new rules to improve the game or increase the actual amount of football played within the 90 minutes, when all that actually needs doing is consistent enforcement of the current rules. It might be carnage for a couple of weeks with regard to bookings and sendings off but you'd think that players would learn pretty quickly.

The other one that gets me is "obstructing" free kicks, either standing in the way, kicking the ball (1 yard or 85 yards shouldn't make a difference - still a booking to me!) Or picking the ball up and carrying it away. Personally I think it should be a booking for any player that touches the ball after a free kick has been given against their team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I remember the obstruction rule well. Got penalised for it as well and being "obstructed" from getting to the ball numerous times but rarely did we get awarded a free kick. Referees were just as inconsistent back then as they are now.

It was an indirect free kicks for obstruction and the ref  indicating by raising his arm. These days a free kick is always direct.

Maybe that's why the rule was removed - too exhausting for the referee......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, downendcity said:

A couple of seasons ago the football referees clamped down on this and at the start of the season we started to see penalties being given for attackers being "manhandled" at corners. Lots of debate on MOTD IIRC about this and managers moaning when it affected their team.

However, as with so many of this type of "initiative" once the dust has settled after the initial fuss, things appear to have gone back to where they were previously, so corners and free kicks are once again the football equivalent of all in wrestling.

On the obstruction issue, the one that makes me mad, is when a defender is "shepherding" the ball out for a goal kick. The ball can be 10 feet away from him, but he appears to be allowed to back in and hand off the attacker to prevent him getting past and anywhere near the ball. In my playing days making no attempt to play the ball and doing this would obstruction  but it now constitutes a legitimate defending tactic.

It seems to me that any physical contact now constitutes , not only a foul, but also a yellow card. I do wonder what type of challenge is a legitimate tackle, as every element of physical contact seems to be penalised.

Perhaps Im just becoming a grumpy old man.

One bit of good news - it was good to see Rooney wearing proper boots yesterday i.e. black ones!

Watching a bit of the Southampton v Newcastle game yesterday, what I struggled to understand was that after Yedlin had already been booked & then gone in 2 foot-ish & given a free kick away, the ref doesn’t show a 2nd yellow card & subsequent red card & there was a similar situation with another player just a couple of minutes later (can’t remember the 2nd player involved) but both weren’t given a red cards although their fouls deserved them in today’s standards but a player kicked the ball away & he’s booked!! 

There is just no consistency from the officials, surely as a player you know that if you’ve already been booked that you can’t go making 2 footed challenges?!? Or as in Andy Carrol’s dismissal on Saturday at Burnley, booked for going for a header with his elbow making contact with an opponents face / head & he then made an identical challenge just minutes later & rightly got his marching orders although a) he could of probably been sent-off for the first offence & b) should of never been making a similar challenge again & then standing with a look of total disbelief on his face when he’s rightly punished & sent-off.

It feels like we need to go back to basics & either get refs to visit every club to outline what the laws of the game are or clubs need to sit players down to make them aware of what’s acceptable. Maybe if everything was outlined, the players would know what to expect from the refs & the refs wouldn’t feel like they were in such a bad position (if that’s their problem) for carrying out the laws of the game & this could make everyone concerned with the game know where they stand & this would solve the issues with 2 footed tackles, diving, all out wrestling at dead ball situations, time wasting, feigning injuries / play acting etc because it just seems like clubs & players are trying to find new ways of bending the rules & it’s not for any benefit of the beautiful game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

A bit like the incessant grappling that is allowed to go on at set pieces these days, it seems to be completely ignored.

It's odd isn't it. Someone trips over your foot and it's an instant foul. Hold a player in an arm lock and that's completely fine. 

That isn't football as I played it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with corners is that the dark arts are used by both teams. For every defender holding an attacker, there is an attacker making no attempt to even compete, blocking off defenders and holding them too. A prime example is the attacker who stands by the keeper and has only one job, to obstruct him.

How can you give a free kick either way when both teams are at it? The difference is the attackers methods are more subtle so we make more of a fuss about defenders holding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many refs have actually played  the game to any reasonable standard?

Those of us that have played, can see what players get up to because we've been subject to the same things when playing. I wonder whether referees are so easily duped/conned because they know the rules/laws but don't understand things from a players point of view.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with having rules is that the referee never has to show any common sense. They rarely act on what is actually going on before their eyes but are quick to react to pressure from players. I'll not start on the help that the assistant referees are supposed to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

How many refs have actually played  the game to any reasonable standard?

Those of us that have played, can see what players get up to because we've been subject to the same things when playing. I wonder whether referees are so easily duped/conned because they know the rules/laws but don't understand things from a players point of view.

 

 

I guess it depends on what you call ‘played’? Ex pros probably don’t go into reffing because they know how they’ll get treated in terms of respect wise & any top level ex-players have made more than enough money that they don’t need to go into reffing after their playing career is over.

But I would suggest that all refs have played at some standard no matter how low that standard is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

 I remember the obstruction rule well. Got penalised for it as well and being "obstructed" from getting to the ball numerous times but rarely did we get awarded a free kick. Referees were just as inconsistent back then as they are now.

It was an indirect free kicks for obstruction and the ref  indicating by raising his arm. These days a free kick is always direct.

Maybe that's why the rule was removed - too exhausting for the referee......

That's not actually true.

Indirect free kicks are given for offside, shows of dissent, ungentlemanly conduct, and a few other things.

Not all free kicks are direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

That's not actually true.

Indirect free kicks are given for offside, shows of dissent, ungentlemanly conduct, and a few other things.

Not all free kicks are direct.

I didn't realise that. Probably because I can't remember seeing a referee raise his arm to indicate an indirect free kick for the offences you mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree about the disappearance of the obstruction rule. It could and should be used regularly.

Also, we could do without a lot of the direct free kicks for fouls. I don't like dirty football but I firmly believe that there are far too many free kicks given for minimal contact. It annoys me that pundits so often say "there was contact, so he was entitled to go down" when discussing penalties. Not all collisions are fouls!! OK, if you mistime a tackle and accidentally kick an opponent, that is a foul - it doesn't have to be deliberate like handball. However, if two players running towards the same spot bounce off each other, and one falls over, refs fans and pundits now automatically expect a free kick. That not how I see it - free kicks should only be for kicking, pushing or holding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, downendcity said:

On the obstruction issue, the one that makes me mad, is when a defender is "shepherding" the ball out for a goal kick. The ball can be 10 feet away from him, but he appears to be allowed to back in and hand off the attacker to prevent him getting past and anywhere near the ball. In my playing days making no attempt to play the ball and doing this would obstruction  but it now constitutes a legitimate defending tactic.

For me, it should depend if the defender is attempting to play the ball. Once he has touched the ball, it is under his control and it is fair enough to shield the ball with his body. BUT if he hasn't touched it, it isn't under his control, so holding off his opponent is obstruction and a foul.

If a player pushes the ball past his man on the halfway line and the defender blocks him off,  with no effort to play the ball, he may well get a yellow card. Doing the same thing on the goal line, to prevent the attacker getting to the ball before it goes out is "good defending". What's the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Launching the ball when a free kick is given seems to have been more commonplace this season. One thing that drives me mental is when players pick up the ball and throw it in the opposite direction, yellow card for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Launching the ball when a free kick is given seems to have been more commonplace this season. One thing that drives me mental is when players pick up the ball and throw it in the opposite direction, yellow card for me.

:redcard:    hey, you dont get to choose your own punishment mate... It's a red for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dave36 said:

Watching Burton players falling down on Friday and Linnington helping them kill the game, there were a couple of incidents where city players were physically prevented from running with the ball, good old fashioned obstruction- what happened to rule 12?

its been blocked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Leveller said:

I completely agree about the disappearance of the obstruction rule. It could and should be used regularly.

Also, we could do without a lot of the direct free kicks for fouls. I don't like dirty football but I firmly believe that there are far too many free kicks given for minimal contact. It annoys me that pundits so often say "there was contact, so he was entitled to go down" when discussing penalties. Not all collisions are fouls!! OK, if you mistime a tackle and accidentally kick an opponent, that is a foul - it doesn't have to be deliberate like handball. However, if two players running towards the same spot bounce off each other, and one falls over, refs fans and pundits now automatically expect a free kick. That not how I see it - free kicks should only be for kicking, pushing or holding.

I'm afraid that this probably says more about the ethics of the pundits than ideas of sportsmanship. As for deliberate handball we'll have to wait until John Terry becomes a Pundit! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BCFC Richard said:

Fifa Rule 12 is quite clear and mostly allows obstruction as long as you are in playing distance of the ball. 

"A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept in playing distance." 

In which case it's not obstruction but legally shielding the ball.

However refs don't seem to use the obstruction rule now, even for body checking away from the ball. They treat it as a foul and a direct free kick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...